Suppr超能文献

经皮离子导入利多卡因后皮肤麻醉的剂量无差异。

No difference between doses in skin anesthesia after lidocaine delivered via iontophoresis.

机构信息

University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.

出版信息

J Sport Rehabil. 2011 May;20(2):187-97. doi: 10.1123/jsr.20.2.187.

Abstract

CONTEXT

Iontophoresis is a method of administering medications transcutaneously using galvanic current. Dose is the product of current amplitude and treatment duration. It is assumed that higher doses of iontophoresis are more effective in delivering medication, yet research supporting this claim is insufficient.

OBJECTIVE

To compare high-dose lidocaine iontophoresis (80 mA-min), standard-dose lidocaine iontophoresis (40 mA-min), and 2 sham treatments indirectly by measuring skin anesthesia.

DESIGN

Double-blind crossover study.

SETTING

Research laboratory.

PARTICIPANTS

15 healthy volunteers (10 women, 5 men: age 24.06 ± 2 y, height 169.7 ± 8.3 cm, weight 72.5 ± 14.2 kg).

INTERVENTION

Four treatments were counterbalanced and applied on the anterior forearm: 2 true interventions (40 and 80 mA-min) and 2 sham interventions separated by at least 24 h. The true-intervention doses were applied at a current of 2 mA with 2.5 ml 2% lidocaine HCL for 20 and 40 min. The sham treatments were 2.5 ml of lidocaine without galvanic current (intensity = 0 mA, 40 min) and 2.5 ml of saline solution (galvanic current of 2 mA for 40 min).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Semmes-Weinstein monofilament scores were taken preintervention and postintervention (at 0, 20, 40, and 60 min) to measure skin anesthesia.

RESULTS

A significant interaction between treatment and time (F = 4.137, P < .01) was identified. The 40-mA-min dose produced greater anesthesia than the lidocaine and saline shams at all times. The 80-mA-min dose produced greater anesthesia than saline sham at all times. There was a significant difference noted, with 40 mA-min over 80 mA-min, at the 20-min posttest, but there were no other significant differences between the 40- and 80-mA-min doses at 0, 40, or 60 min posttreatment or between the 2 sham treatments at any time.

CONCLUSIONS

The 40-mA-min treatment was just as effective as the 80-mA-min treatment, suggesting that shorter treatments may be more time efficient for clinicians and patients.

摘要

背景

电渗疗法是一种使用电流经皮给药的方法。剂量是电流幅度和治疗时间的产物。人们假设更高剂量的电渗疗法在输送药物方面更有效,但支持这一说法的研究还不够充分。

目的

通过测量皮肤麻醉,比较高剂量利多卡因电渗疗法(80 mA-min)、标准剂量利多卡因电渗疗法(40 mA-min)和 2 种假治疗。

设计

双盲交叉研究。

地点

研究实验室。

参与者

15 名健康志愿者(10 名女性,5 名男性;年龄 24.06±2 岁,身高 169.7±8.3cm,体重 72.5±14.2kg)。

干预措施

4 种治疗方法相互平衡,在前臂上应用:2 种真正的干预措施(40 和 80 mA-min)和 2 种假干预措施,间隔至少 24 小时。真干预的剂量以 2 mA 的电流应用 2.5 毫升 2%利多卡因 HCL 20 分钟和 40 分钟。假治疗分别为 2.5 毫升无电流的利多卡因(强度=0 mA,40 分钟)和 2.5 毫升生理盐水(电流强度为 2 mA,40 分钟)。

主要观察指标

在干预前和干预后(0、20、40 和 60 分钟)测量皮肤麻醉情况,采用 Semmes-Weinstein 单丝评分。

结果

治疗与时间之间存在显著的交互作用(F=4.137,P<.01)。40 mA-min 剂量在所有时间点都比利多卡因和盐水假治疗产生更大的麻醉效果。80 mA-min 剂量在所有时间点都比盐水假治疗产生更大的麻醉效果。在 20 分钟的测试后,40 mA-min 剂量与 80 mA-min 剂量之间存在显著差异,但在治疗后 0、40 或 60 分钟或在任何时间的 2 种假治疗之间,40 mA-min 与 80 mA-min 剂量之间没有其他显著差异。

结论

40 mA-min 治疗与 80 mA-min 治疗同样有效,这表明较短的治疗时间可能对临床医生和患者更有效率。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验